DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Learning Thread — Landscape Photography
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 1229, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/04/2006 10:43:54 PM · #51
Great job Robert. Having never taken a photography class it's threads like this that make DPC worth it for me.
04/04/2006 11:45:20 PM · #52
Originally posted by melissia:

Hello! Interesting subject. I'm with ya too. Whats next? How do I find the next lesson?


Just keep watching this thread...

R.

04/05/2006 12:33:27 AM · #53
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... If you’re shooting in the snow, you need to add exposure. If you’re shooting a scene with a lot of deep, shadow areas you need to subtract exposure. ... Shooting sunrises and sunsets requires careful attention to exposure, however, as does shooting landscapes with a lot of sky filled with luminous clouds.

Robt.

This is what's always confused me about this part -- whenever I want to shoot clouds, I seem to have to use negative exposure compensation to keep from blowing out all the highlights, not a plus adjustment to brighten them up..

Is that because some P&S cameras are simply not able to stop-down far enough the "gray-out" those clouds, and the -eV setting is the equivalent of closing the aperture some more?
04/05/2006 12:37:16 AM · #54
Originally posted by GeneralE:


This is what's always confused me about this part -- whenever I want to shoot clouds, I seem to have to use negative exposure compensation to keep from blowing out all the highlights, not a plus adjustment to brighten them up..

Is that because some P&S cameras are simply not able to stop-down far enough the "gray-out" those clouds, and the -eV setting is the equivalent of closing the aperture some more?


If they are the sort of clouds that are thick and shadowed, in strong relief, the bright parts can be relatively small and you might indeed be overexposing for those if you have a lot of sky. The kind of clouds I am referring to are the bright, full-of-light, luminous ones that fill the sky; if you have a lot of sky and a little foreground, those tend to underexpose.

Robt.
04/05/2006 01:05:09 AM · #55
I mostly mean shots like this ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/46280.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/46280.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' or several of the ones in this collection.

Sorry of this is a diversion from the main track here ...
04/05/2006 09:31:34 AM · #56
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I mostly mean shots like this ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/46280.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/46280.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' or several of the ones in this collection.

Sorry of this is a diversion from the main track here ...


Looking at the collection... (it's not too bad of a diversion, btw, we ARE discussing exposure)... I see images where easily half the image area is "falling" on zone 4, and much of the rest is on zone 5, and where the BRIGHTEST part of the clouds is at zone 7, with most of the cloud on zone 6, so yeah, I can see why you needed negative exposure compensation to do that. On the full shot, the metering will have been trying to pull the overall scene up to zone 5, and that would have resulted in zone 6-8 or even 6-9 clouds, where what you have ended up with is zone 5-7 clouds, basically.

One thing you need to think about is where you have your parameters set, if you're shooting jpg. On shots like this, with extreme tonal range and very important luminous bright areas, it usually works better to shoot at the lowest possible contrast. This will allow a fuller exposure, and you can add local contrast in processing. Best of all is to shoot in RAW, of course, so you can make these adjustments more easily after the fact.

Even when I'm shooting jpg, I always use the lowest contrast setting on my camera; it's a very easy adjustment to dial in in PP, and the lower contrast gives me the most adjustable dynamic range out of the camera.

Robt.
04/05/2006 10:36:40 AM · #57
Im with you on this one Robt. Some is familiar from previous mentor session but please keep this one going. Very valuable. Thanks.
04/05/2006 10:44:00 AM · #58
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Even when I'm shooting jpg, I always use the lowest contrast setting on my camera; it's a very easy adjustment to dial in in PP, and the lower contrast gives me the most adjustable dynamic range out of the ca
That's interesting cause when I got my camera I went googling looking how others have setup the parameters, and all the ones I found had high contrast settings. Will you look more at contrast? Thanks for the info so far this is a very interesting thread, I'm learning lots.
04/05/2006 10:59:48 AM · #59
Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Even when I'm shooting jpg, I always use the lowest contrast setting on my camera; it's a very easy adjustment to dial in in PP, and the lower contrast gives me the most adjustable dynamic range out of the ca
That's interesting cause when I got my camera I went googling looking how others have setup the parameters, and all the ones I found had high contrast settings. Will you look more at contrast? Thanks for the info so far this is a very interesting thread, I'm learning lots.


Well, the difference is I am willing to accept the need for more PP work. It's a tradeoff. The images look better out of camera with high contrast and high saturation, but they are less flexible in post-processing. Contrast, in particular, is better applied in PP where you can be much more subtle in tweaking it. We can adjust levels, curves, and brightness/contrast easily, and we can do shadow/highlight or contrast masking without a lot of effort.

Certainly, if you want to shoot "straight-to-print" you want to set these parameters in-camera for the most pleasing result; if, for example, you're shooting 100 frames at a family get-together, to share with family members.

Robt.
04/05/2006 12:54:28 PM · #60
So your camera set up might be dramatically different depending on intent, artsy vs event etc. Interesting.. I set mine and leave it. Hmm...
04/05/2006 01:06:04 PM · #61
Robert, thank you for your time....I'm so far behind (haven't had time to get lesson's done) but I am keeping up with the thread...Maybe on the weekend I'll catch up!

Thank you so much for your time....
Melissa
04/05/2006 03:24:32 PM · #62
Originally posted by rblanton:

So your camera set up might be dramatically different depending on intent, artsy vs event etc. Interesting.. I set mine and leave it. Hmm...


Yes, very much so. UNless, of course, you are shooting RAW; then you can vary all these parameters in the RAW converter and play with the image all you like, as long as the exposure is done properly to begin with.

R.
04/05/2006 08:21:41 PM · #63
Thank you Robert for allowing me to catch-up. :)

Didn't have any empty boxes, so grabbed one of my houses. Hope that's okay.

*crosses fingers that I did this right* - I was losing daylight fast, so I wasn't overly worried about focus, just catching the light.

Left to right: flat, shaping, raking, backlit
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317246.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317246.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317247.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317247.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317245.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317245.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317244.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/38464/thumb/317244.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

The two that I am uncertain if I did correctly, are shaping and raking. I think I got it, but not sure.

I have to run out to store, while out, will grab some black paper..

And thank you for doing this! I wasn't able to get in on the other class, so am grateful that you are doing this here. :)

Message edited by author 2006-04-05 20:23:13.
04/06/2006 02:39:52 AM · #64
Originally posted by Skyarcher:

Didn't have any empty boxes, so grabbed one of my houses. Hope that's okay.

*crosses fingers that I did this right* - I was losing daylight fast, so I wasn't overly worried about focus, just catching the light.


Yeah, that's fine. "Shaping" and "Raking" are interesting in that both of them actually use raking light to some extent; in "shaping" you have one face in shadow and the light fairly parallel to the other face, so it is in strong relief. If "raking" you have one face strongly lit and the other lightly raked. It is very instructive to compare the two, actually. Which of the two sorts of light to use is often a biq decision in architectural photography.

Welcome aboard.

R.
04/06/2006 02:50:15 AM · #65
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Skyarcher:

Didn't have any empty boxes, so grabbed one of my houses. Hope that's okay.

*crosses fingers that I did this right* - I was losing daylight fast, so I wasn't overly worried about focus, just catching the light.


Yeah, that's fine. "Shaping" and "Raking" are interesting in that both of them actually use raking light to some extent; in "shaping" you have one face in shadow and the light fairly parallel to the other face, so it is in strong relief. If "raking" you have one face strongly lit and the other lightly raked. It is very instructive to compare the two, actually. Which of the two sorts of light to use is often a biq decision in architectural photography.

Welcome aboard.

R.


Thanks :)

To me, what I 'saw' was that raking gives more definition to it, by playing on the light and shadowed areas. It gave it more of a textural feel to it.

Is my thinking off or is that what it is about? Out of the 4, I liked what I labeled (whether right or wrong *laughs*) as raking, the best.

Christine
04/06/2006 05:35:19 AM · #66
I'm on board. thsi is just so I can find the thread easily.
04/06/2006 07:16:20 AM · #67
Originally posted by Skyarcher:

To me, what I 'saw' was that raking gives more definition to it, by playing on the light and shadowed areas. It gave it more of a textural feel to it.

Is my thinking off or is that what it is about? Out of the 4, I liked what I labeled (whether right or wrong *laughs*) as raking, the best.

Christine


Yes, that's exactly what it's "about"; and yes, the one you labeled, correctly, as "raking" is the "best lit" of the 4 examples IMO.

R.
04/06/2006 07:45:21 AM · #68
Leeching on - thanks Robert!
04/06/2006 08:01:25 AM · #69
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There are two ways you can do this; by shooting in full-manual mode or by using the “exposure compensation” feature of your camera. I prefer the full manual mode, but I tend to work on static scenes from a tripod. If you’re working hand-held and moving around a lot, exposure compensation may be preferable for you; just remember that you need to change that exposure compensation value as the scene itself changes.

Up to now I've only ever used manual mode to set exposure - I've tended not to use exposure compensation as I wasn't sure how it worked.

I assume that when you adjust Ev that the aperture, ISO and shutter speed remain the same - so it must use some other mechanism to adjust exposure.

So how does exposure compensation work? - Does it somehow amplify the electronic signal from the sensor? And if so what impact does this have on noise?
04/06/2006 08:12:53 AM · #70
Originally posted by PaulE:

I'm on board. thsi is just so I can find the thread easily.


Me too.
04/06/2006 08:14:14 AM · #71
Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There are two ways you can do this; by shooting in full-manual mode or by using the “exposure compensation” feature of your camera. I prefer the full manual mode, but I tend to work on static scenes from a tripod. If you’re working hand-held and moving around a lot, exposure compensation may be preferable for you; just remember that you need to change that exposure compensation value as the scene itself changes.

Up to now I've only ever used manual mode to set exposure - I've tended not to use exposure compensation as I wasn't sure how it worked.

I assume that when you adjust Ev that the aperture, ISO and shutter speed remain the same - so it must use some other mechanism to adjust exposure.

So how does exposure compensation work? - Does it somehow amplify the electronic signal from the sensor? And if so what impact does this have on noise?
In AV Priority it'll adjust the shutter speed, in TV Priority it'll adjust the aperture. ISO and everything else remain the same.

Message edited by author 2006-04-06 08:15:08.
04/06/2006 08:18:12 AM · #72
Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by jhonan:

So how does exposure compensation work? - Does it somehow amplify the electronic signal from the sensor? And if so what impact does this have on noise?

In AV Priority it'll adjust the shutter speed, in TV Priority it'll adjust the aperture. ISO and everything else remain the same.

That's correct. But I'm referring to Ev (Exposure Compensation), the +2 to -2 setting. What does that adjust?
04/06/2006 09:23:13 AM · #73
Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by jhonan:

So how does exposure compensation work? - Does it somehow amplify the electronic signal from the sensor? And if so what impact does this have on noise?

In AV Priority it'll adjust the shutter speed, in TV Priority it'll adjust the aperture. ISO and everything else remain the same.

That's correct. But I'm referring to Ev (Exposure Compensation), the +2 to -2 setting. What does that adjust?

Exactly that, it changes the shutter or aperture depending which mode you are in. in 'P' it would decide which to change. But it's always only the shutter or aperture that changes, by 1 stop each notch on the EV scale.
04/06/2006 11:23:02 AM · #74
Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by jhonan:

That's correct. But I'm referring to Ev (Exposure Compensation), the +2 to -2 setting. What does that adjust?

Exactly that, it changes the shutter or aperture depending which mode you are in. in 'P' it would decide which to change. But it's always only the shutter or aperture that changes, by 1 stop each notch on the EV scale.

Ahhhh.... Finally I understand. I just tried it out. In manual mode the Ev setting doesn't do anything!

In AP mode it adjusts shutter speed, in SP mode it adjusts aperture.

I think I'll stick with manual mode...

edit: Okay, back to the scheduled programme. :)

Message edited by author 2006-04-06 11:24:13.
04/06/2006 12:26:09 PM · #75
I'm one of those people who learns better by trying and seeing... so I did this:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40912/thumb/317448.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40912/thumb/317448.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I skipped an image or two that didn't have super-strong differences. Each flower is an adjustment (or 2) on the EV setting bar.

Kinda helped me. :)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 07/25/2021 11:37:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/25/2021 11:37:25 AM EDT.